Replica builds for heritage lines.

Everything you've said sounds eminently sensible, which is why it has no place in a discussion of extravagant pipe-dreams. Please try to stay on topic.

 

It was the “penny wise, pound foolish” reuse of components from scrapped D1s in the first series of I1s that essentially ruined the latter, in particular using short coupling rods meant the firebox length was fatally compromised. So be careful what you wish for!

Anyone who is interested in the actual practicalities of a wide range of Brighton designs, and what might actually be feasible or not, is recommended to search out Fred Bailey’s article in Atlantic News from about a year ago, where the possibilities and problems of a wide range of classes was looked at.

Tom

 

I don't know about drawings, but in the last couple of years somebody completed an equally fine 5" gauge model of 326 Bessborough (try your search engine of choice), so perhaps the other big Brighton tank design is less shrouded in mystery. No, I'm not seriously suggesting it, although it's surely not really any more overpowered for the job than a Standard 4 2-6-4T.

 

I doubt you'll be too surprised to learn that I agree with you Tom. To my mind, the only reason to build a short wheelbase I1 would be to have LBSCR No.1 (SR No.B1), though the fact the original wasn't rebuilt to I1x until 1931 means you'd be saddled with a true w*****r! As of the last 3 survivors (wdn Jun 1951) only 5/B5/2005 ever seems to have carried it's BR No.32005, with 2595/2596 gone before renumbering, unless someone retained an identifiable component round which to 'rebuild', any recreation's number would either ignore precedent (and go for No.B1 regardless) or come from the range (2)595-(2)604.

That said, if SP are thinking in terms of fielding a live Southern 4-4-2t any time soon, I can think of one kicking around patiently awaiting a ruling from on high.

As I don't posess the Bailey article, would a summary of conclusions be possible please?

 

Your first statement is pure rubbish. It does not need to be practical to be able to get through its first overhaul. It needs either two things. 1. A loco group that has managed to raise enough money to build in the first place (which many are unfortunately unable to do which is a shame) would have their heads on to be able to have enough money in the bank to get it back out again. 2. I'm sure a brand new loco only 10 years in however practical is going to be cheaper to overhaul than some of the locos currently coming out of service.

The second statement doesn't come from any fact. It comes from your pessimistic view point. There is no reason why the mainline tourism market won't adapt and change to suit it's environment and create new ways of getting income. Biggest isn't always best and neither is longer rakes. Maybe it will come down to less groups trying to take their part of the pot. Ie instead of having west coast being the TOC, steam dreams being the tour OC, and a loco group supplying the engine and more situations like Vintage trains or LSL/Icons of steam where it's all in house.

 

Two paragraphs full of W.I.B.N. wishful thinking. Both the numbered sentences in the first paragraph are a tad garbled, No. 1 being particularly so. The suitability of the machine for the work will directly influence its earning power and its future prospects. For instance, one senses surprise in some Swanage circles about the ability and economy of 41312. I'm not surprised at all about its virtues.

Now for the main line. The identity of the particular TOC is less the point than the availability of paths, not to mention the routes which Network Rail are prepared to countenance for steam haulage, standby motive power costs and so on. All pressures towards fewer but heavier trains.

PH

 

Which inevitably means a box on the back. As this is a new build thread I suggest that box should be 10000.

 

According to my loco spotter's book, the N15Xs were classified 4P by BR. Presumably the original tank version would have been the same, and that is not much different from the 4MT tanks. The nominal TE is much about the same. There is some justice in Paul's view of Class 7s and 8s being unnecessarily big for most preserved lines, but Class 4 seems a nice size.

 

For those complaining about things that make sense in terms of practicality and cost, may I remind you that 60 years ago, the idea of preservation probably didn't make sense in terms of practicality and cost. In some ways, today, it still has yet to make sense. And yet every weekend hundreds of people give up their time and energy to run trains whose economic sensibility and ability to make financial return has long since passed, for thousands of people who think its worth spending their money to have a ride behind something from yesteryear. If you look at preservation solely in terms of what makes sense, then you will probably come to the conclusion that everything should be put in a museum and stop making an annual net loss through running costs. The whole of preservation is WIBN that has just happened, to a certain extent inexplicably, to become reality. The same is true of every single project within preservation. Without a WIBN thought, very little would ever get done. Don't beat up the dreamers, without them, we wouldn't have a preservation movement.

With regards to the large vs small argument which has been bandied around in this thread and others, I'm a volunteer at the GCRN. From 2012-2013/4, our primary motive power was an RSH 'Ugly' 0-6-0ST, number 63. From 2014 until about a couple of months ago, it was 8F 8274. Now, we are borrowing Ivatt 46521 from Loughborough, and come next year our resident motive power will be another loco of Industrial origin, slightly smaller than 63. So we've had our share of large and small locos (63 could probably actually be termed a small medium sized loco, for an 0-6-0 it has quite a sizeable boiler, cylinders and power output). In terms of fuel costs, there is very little to choose between 63, 8274 and 46521, and I doubt there will be much of a difference with our new loco from next year. The main differences in cost come in the form of hire fees (larger locos tend to command larger hire fees), and maintenance costs (because the 8F doesn't need to work as hard as it can to put in a certain amount of work as the Ivatt does, it will therefore acquire less wear and ear over the course of a year and therefore maintenance costs, in theory at least, will be lower. Theoretically this should also reduce the amount of time the loco has to spend out of traffic being repaired). Therefore, it's not quite so simple as 'smaller locos are sufficient, larger locos are unnecessary'. It depends on the exact circumstances at the railway, on how much responsibility they have for the maintenance of the loco and how beneficially they can negotiate hire fees.

Also, a Brighton Baltic would be similar in terms of size and power to something like a 4MT tank, or a Black 5 or Hall. Locos that sized have been perfectly suitable for preserved railways up and down the country since the 1970s. There is no reason to suggest a new LBSCR 4-6-4 would be any different, other than the fact that it is newer could potentially reduce maintenance time and cost

 

77021, be the finest. Not sure what's going on there?

 

This is a precis of a much longer article. Obviously, it was written with the Bluebell in mind, specifically the thought process of "what (if anything) follows 'Beachy Head'?" The general point is that any prospective loco has to meet three criteria: useful, buildable and fundable. In our context, "useful" means it has to pull a train we routinely run (or might expect to in the future) - a train weight between 70-odd and about 280 tons, up a 1 in 55 gradient. That actually allows quite a wide range of locos to be useful. "Buildable" encompasses firstly having drawings available; secondly avoiding any really complicated features (I think there is even some doubt as to whether the joggled frames of "Beachy Head" could still be made in this country). "Fundable" helps to have some numbers against it: a mid-size tender engine like a K is likely to cost about £3million; a smaller tank engine might be £1.5 - £2million. If you assume that 15 years is about the longest you want to be building something (ideally quicker), that means you need a sustainable funding rate of between £100k - £200k per year, every year. That in turn means certain esoteric types are simply not likely to enthuse enough people to become viable, even if they were eminently useful and buildable.

On the subject of costs: a pair of driving wheels on an axle ~ £60k. Pair of carrying or tender wheels on axle ~ £30k. Crank axle ~ £40k just for the axle, with the wheels extra. A larger boiler, built traditionally with copper firebox and superheater is likely to be ~ £500k for the boiler, about an additional £40k for the superheater header and elements. A non-superheated boiler will be about half that. (For a new build for heritage line - as opposed to mainline - use, the additional cost of the superheater will never be recovered in reduced fuel costs, especially as locos in heritage use spend almost all of their time with the regulator shut, when the superheater provides no benefit at all, but has cost a lot to produce. In a 12 hour day - prep, run service, dispose - a loco on the Bluebell only has the regulator open for about two hours, the rest of the time it is stationary or coasting).

So with that in mind, what might be considered:

C2X - useful, though with several similar 0-6-0s on the line, would it attract enough interest to be fundable? Available drawings are very limited, so probably not very easily buildable.

D1 / D2 / D3: D1 - possibly a bit too small to be useful, with limited water capacity. D2 gets over the water capacity issue, but with lower adhesion (a factor for use on a steeply graded line that runs through woodland for a considerable distance) and presumably greater cost. D3 would probably be the most useful of the three, but hardly any surviving drawings.

I1 / I1x / I2 / I3 / I4: The I3 is the historically notable one, but the others all have the benefit of smaller wheels and no superheater (reduced cost). The non-superheated ones weren't conspicuously successful though, so no reason to assume that those faults could be easily designed out: in addition, it is (to my mind at least) hard to imagine that a design with a poor reputation would attract enough support to be fundable.

J1 / J2 / L: The L has almost no drawings available, which probably rules it out - it may also be a bit marginal from a gauging point of view, especially through Horsted Keynes. The J1 / J2 are a lot more feasible, with numerous drawings available and - if you built "Abergavenny", the Stephenson valve gear version - it shares driving wheels, cylinders, motion and front bogie with "Beachy Head", reducing the design work and new patterns required.

K - probably the most operationally useful, it would also likely attract a lot of funding support. A large number of drawings survive: on the other hand, the frames are supposedly hideously complex, and taken together, it would probably be the most expensive (and longest) to construct.

Tom

 

Isn't one the options also a Craven era LBSCR loco? I know its in the Bluebell long term plan but wouldn't an issue with that also be a lack of drawings? Will be interesting to see what (if indeed there will be) a follow up loco after 32424.

 

Indeed - it has a lot going for it, and the drawings issue can be overcome ...

As for what actually comes next: AFAIK there is no absolute decision, but I think that we are getting to the point where fairly soon we have to commit, so that the necessary preparatory work can start. My feeling is that realistically it would be a decision between the Craven and the K class mogul. I know which I prefer.

Tom

 

Forgive me but this is pure "big chufferitis". It is a 25mph tourist railway, which does not justify the speed capabilities of an express type or the haulage capacity of a heavy freight machine. No amount of wishful thinking will change this.

PH

 

Still under construction rather than complete as yet, and not in the UK, but isn’t there a South Australian Railway Z class under construction by an individual (the name Glenn Smythe comes to mind)? I remember seeing a video a year or so ago interviewing him about it.

 

Perhaps. And I agree with your suggestion that having an 8F working a 4 coach train at 25mph on a fairly flat line isn't stretching it to its capabilities. But at the end of the day, it was a steam loco that we could count on being available to haul our services, week in, week out. Which in my book is better than having no steam loco at all, even if it can seem a bit excessive.
The fact is there are always going to be a limited number of places where the speed capabilities of an express loco (not every express loco is going to be able to go mainline, finances will make that impossible for many owning groups), or the haulage capacity of a heavy freight machine (Other than railways like the NYMR or MHR, very few places have both the gradients and the passenger traffic demanding heavy enough trains to truly extend a loco around the power of the 8F) can be met. As there are more locos of top link pedigree than there are places which can extend these locos to their top link capabilities, you have the choice of having some of these locos either running in places where they are not being fully extended, or parked up in a siding or museum not doing anything. I'd rather the former, and that means having things like an 8F running on the GCRN. And as the fuel costs aren't crippling, and as we could afford the hire fees, it worked out well for all parties involved. 'Big Chufferitis' as you call it is always going to happen because there are too many 'big chuffers' for the number of railways where 'big chuffers' are necessary. So you can complain all you like, it's always going to be around and you might as well get used to it. Or tell every loco group that owns a big chuffer that their loco is unnecessary and they should stuff it and mount it, or scrap it and use the metal to build something smaller and 'more suitable'. (Yes, that is hyperbole. But I think you get my point)

 

I see the word 'Baltic' being mentioned without 'Whitelegg' in the same sentence. Surely, on looks alone one or more of his machines built for the GSW needs replicating. I'll be generous enough to let the builder decide whether it is GSW green or LMS red.

 

Handsome looking machines. Shame they were so short lived.

 

So Paul, on the "increasingly infrequent" occasions I drop by NP these days, a lot of what I see is penned by yourself and is almost without exception negative in tone.

Perhaps as a Christmas treat you could enlighten us as to your view of the ideal future for steam-hauled rail operations, be they preservation/heritage/main line or whatever else. I for one would be most interested.

TIA

 

Forgive me PH, but is it time to give the phrase a rest for a while? Chufferitis comes up 109 times (111 now!) on a forum search. After all we all know your opinion, but it seems to me that it is just an opinion, not backed up by any real facts and figures.

If we are to establish whether a preserved line is at fault in running larger locomotives than the barest minimum size that is just about capable of dragging a typical train from one end of the line to another then we have to know an enormous amount of financial detail that is most likely simply not available.
Firstly the locomotive finances.
We need to be comparing the total costs over the overhaul cycle.
How much per mile does it cost to run? What is the expenditure in lubricants, coal, even polish
What is the overhaul cost? How much work does it require at overhaul, how much wear is accumulated? What needs to be replaced?
What is reliability like? How many services need to be cancelled? What expenses are gathered there?
How many times has the locomotive not been able to run the services on time because it needs assistance, has run out of fuel or water, how much has this cost?

Then the intangibles?
How do ticket sales compare running one locomotive against the other?
How much volunteer labour does each locomotive attract?
How much does each locomotive earn in donations and other fund raising activities?
I strongly suspect that the Bluebell's historical survivors with their expensive elaborate liveries and 19thC engineering cost a lot more over their lives than Austerity tanks would, but I also suspect that the extra earnings and volunteer enthusiasm more than make up for it.

The head of works at the time (KJ Cook, Swindon Steam) states that back in the 1930s the GWR made a genuine financial case that it was desirable to upgrade Stars into Castles because the lower evaporation rate of the larger boiler saved 1d a mile in boiler maintenance. So these comparisons are rarely simple. Was that big chufferitis?

If you've got fully worked out whole of maintenance cycle comparisons, incorporating all the intangibles like ticket sales and volunteer labour, then I apologise in advance for the next sentence, but if not...
If you are merely making a blanket assumption that it must be better to run smaller engines than larger ones if the smaller ones will do, then isn't that just another sweeping generalisation/assumption with little in the way of real facts behind it?